Why is this man still in jail?

You're lost for words, but the author of the article wasn't. I didn't get far enough into it to even figure out what the crime was, much less the injustice.

Any chance at a summary?
 
DNA would be a game changer, except for unindicted co-ejaculators

Summary Link.

The 2009 view of the prosecutor was...interesting:

“It’s definitely a matter of drawing the line somewhere,” said Peter Carr, the assistant district attorney who handled the case of Mr. Wright, who was accused of raping and killing a 77-year-old woman. The defendant did not request testing until 2005, three years after the statute was passed, Mr. Carr said, and in his view there was no possibility that the test would show innocence.
“There’s also the idea that you want finality for the victim’s sake,” Mr. Carr said. “If someone else’s semen was found at the crime scene, we’d have to talk to the victim’s family about whether the victim was sexually active.”

EDT
It may be that Peter Carr is invoking some variation of the unindicted co-ejaculator.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
You're lost for words, but the author of the article wasn't. I didn't get far enough into it to even figure out what the crime was, much less the injustice.

Any chance at a summary?
Click to expand...

Guy got convicted of murder. Over a dozen years later DNA evidence showed that the bloody clothes were another guy's, which meant they probably weren't found in the original guy's closet.

Add to that the standard mix of questionable confessions, underpaid/undermotivated public defense attorneys, and the system that's not designed to correct those problems.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Guy got convicted of murder. Over a dozen years later DNA evidence showed that the bloody clothes were another guy's, which meant they probably weren't found in the original guy's closet.

Add to that the standard mix of questionable confessions, underpaid/undermotivated public defense attorneys, and the system that's not designed to correct those problems.
Click to expand...

Excellent. You should write for Rolling Stone. Thank you.
 
marplots said:
Excellent. You should write for Rolling Stone. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'm actually impressed by the article.

It's rare to see upwards of 3000 words before actual start of the story happens.


~3100 words of preamble
~3900 words of story
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ill-in-jail-tony-wright-philadelphia-20150302

I am lost for words.
Click to expand...

That's probably because rolling stone stole your words.

Or they are words monopolist.

ETA: As the article : this is sadly neither the first example of that I hear from the USA. I may be wrong, but my opinion is that because the legal system is retributive rather than be corrective, as long as somebody is "punished" justice the legal system is "done". This also lead to a lot of perverse side effect.
 
Last edited:
He had an accomplice (yup)

angrysoba said:
tl;dr

P.S sumary plees?
Click to expand...
Previously posted link. This is about six paragraphs from the Innocence Project. When DNA testing was finally done, the semen pointed to Ronald Byrd, but the cops had already coerced a confession long ago. See also this link: "But Gilson, flanked by prosecutors Robin Godfrey and Barbara Paul, members of the appeals unit, maintained that the new DNA evidence proved only that Wright had an accomplice and that the totality of evidence "overwhelmingly proved that he murdered Louise Talley."

The absence of Wright's DNA does not exclude him from being the killer, Gilson said."
[lurker status on]
 
angrysoba said:
tl;dr

P.S sumary plees?
Click to expand...

Tony Wright was convicted of murder, thanks to a false confession and planted evidence (in the form of clothes Wright was supposed to have worn which had blood from the victim on them); he later appealed and had the conviction thrown out as DNA pointed to another person.

He remains in prison as prosecutors have indicated they intend to re-try him, despite the fact that not only is there DNA on the victim pointing to someone else, the clothes he was supposed to have worn did not belong to him but in fact belonged to the victim, and did not fit him and in any case Wright has an alibi. In addition, the police who were responsible for the search that turned up the clothes and the interrogation have long histories of falsifying evidence and beating confessions out of suspects.

One other point of interest: there was a policeman in Philadelphia with the name Bohndan Fylystyn.
 
Matthew Best said:
One other point of interest: there was a policeman in Philadelphia with the name Bohndan Fylystyn.
Click to expand...

I think that's the guy who sells Pazaak decks in the Taris cantina in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

He ded now.
 
When law enforcement and prosecutors decide to believe someone is guilty they can be relentless. Unshakeable. I know someone, actually met him and spoke with him, who served sixteen years in prison for the murder/rape of a high school classmate in a park that he absolutely did not commit. During the early stages of the original prosecution when the semen DNA came back a negative match the prosecutor theorized the victim must have gone to the park to "meet a boyfriend," that they had consensual sex and then had parted company by the time the perpetrator happened along.

The victim was a sixteen-year-old girl. Her mother insisted her daughter did not have a boyfriend, did not date, had gone to the park to collect leaves for a school project. She pleaded with the prosecutor not to say her daughter had gone to the park to have sex.

The DA told the mother he was very sorry but...

:(
 
there are lots of them, really

[/lurker status]
newyorkguy,

Both the prosecutor you mentioned and the one in this case believe in the unindicted co-ejaculatorTM theory.
 
Aepervius said:
That's probably because rolling stone stole your words.

Or they are words monopolist.

ETA: As the article : this is sadly neither the first example of that I hear from the USA. I may be wrong, but my opinion is that because the legal system is retributive rather than be corrective, as long as somebody is "punished" justice the legal system is "done". This also lead to a lot of perverse side effect.
Click to expand...

At least part of the reason for cases like this is that cops and prosecutors don't want to admit ever making mistakes. They think it undermines all their cases if the public understands that what they claim isn't always true. And they certainly don't want to admit that by prosecuting the wrong guy, they let the real criminal get away with it. They also know that the state often faces a big financial liability when someone is falsely convicted and imprisoned. You can find a lot of cases like this where prosecutors still claim they've got the right guy even after a judge has thrown the case out and sent the guy home. You will also find cases where prosecutors are only willing to let provably innocent people out of prison if they agree not to sue.

Once "they" decide to come after you, chances are you won't be able to change their minds.
 
Last edited:
Well, he's still in jail because he is still charged with 1st degree murder, and there is no bail for that charge.

You can be kept in jail for a very long time, without trial, if you can't make bail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom